Citigroup Inc. v. Shui et al

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM OPINION Re: Pltf's Declaration in Support of Request for Attorney's Fees and Costs. Signed by District Judge Claude M. Hilton on 08/18/09. (pmil)

IN THE

UNITED

STATES

DISTRICT

COURT

FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT

OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Divis:

CITIGROUP,

INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff,
V.

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA

Civil Action No.
BAO SHUI,

08-0727

CHEN

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

OPINION

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's
Declaration in Support of Request
On February 24, 2009, this

for Attorney's

Fees and Costs.

Court granted Plaintiff's motion for

summary judgment and awarded Plaintiff relief
reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

including
2009,

On March 10,

Plaintiff
Request

filed a Bill of Costs and a Declaration in Support of
Fees. Defendant has not filed any

for Attorneys'

opposition to Plaintiff's submission.

Plaintiff was granted summary judgment on its claim that
Defendant registered and used a domain name Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. 1125(d) (2006)("ACPA"). in violation of the 15 U.S.C.A. §

In granting summary judgment,

this Court

found that Plaintiff was entitled to reasonable attorney's fees
under section 1117(d) of the ACPA. 15 U.S.C.A. § 1117(d) (2006).

Plaintiff bears

the burden of establishing that

its attorney's

fees

are

reasonable.

Plyler v.

Evatt.

902

F.2d

273,

277

(4th

Cir. the

1990){"the burden rests reasonableness of

with the

fee applicant (cited

to establish

a requested rate.")

in Robinson v.

Eouifax Info.

Servs..

LLC.

560

F.3d 235,

244

(4th Cir.

2009)).

"The most useful

starting point

for determining the amount

of
the v.

a reasonable

fee

is

the number of hours

reasonably expended on
hourly rate." Coal Hensley Sales. Fourth

litigation multiplied by a reasonable Eckerhart. v. 461 U.S. 31 424, 433 (1983); 174

Rum Creek

Inc.

Caperton,

F.3d

169,

(4th Cir.

1994).

The

Circuit has

instructed this

Court

to be

guided by twelve

factors

when determining the reasonableness of hours charged.
Inc..
are:

expended and rate Kimbrell's,
factors

Robinson,
F.2d 216,

560
226

F.3d at 243
n.28

(citing Barber v.
1978)). Those

577

(4th Cir.

(1) the time and labor expended; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions raised; (3) the skill required to properly perform the legal services rendered; (4) the attorney's opportunity costs in pressing the instant litigation; (5) the customary fee for like work; (6) the attorney's expectations at the outset of the litigation; (7) the time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the amount in controversy and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the attorney; (10) the undesirability of the case within the legal community in which the suit arose; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship between attorney and client; and (12)
attorneys' fees awards in similar cases.

Id.

(hereinafter the

"Barber factors").

"Any award must be

accompanied by detailed findings of fact with regard to the
factors considered." Id. at 226.

This

exercise

creates

what

courts

call a lodestar

figure.

Grissom v. After the subtract claims,

The Mills

Corp.. is

549

F.3d 313,

320

(4th Cir.

2008).

lodestar figure fees

determined,

this Court should

for unsuccessful

claims unrelated to any successful the remaining amount, Plaintiff."

and

"award some percentage of success

depending on the degree of
Robinson, 560 F.3d at 244.

enjoyed by the

Plaintiff
expended by the

seeks

reimbursement

for a total of
the law

167.2 hours

attorneys and staff of

firm Greenberg

Traurig,

LLP,

on behalf of Plaintiff's

claim in this case.

This

figure
Paul D.

is comprised of work hours expended by the firm's partners
McGrady, Jr., and Steven J. Wadyka, and of-counsel

attorney Janet S.

Hajek whose billable rates ranged from $380

to

$505 per hour;
Dunning,

the firm's associates Jason B.

Elster,

Jeffrey P.

Precious Murchison,

and Marc Leipzig whose billable and, the firm's

rates ranged from $230

to $445 per hour;

paralegals Maria Scavo and Laura A.

Cappello whose billable rates

ranged from $185

to $210 per hour.

Attorneys in the firm began

billing work to Plaintiff's matter in June 2008

and the

invoices

submitted for reimbursement end with the month of January 2009. This case involved a domain name owned by Defendant who is a
foreign national not living in the United States.
included

The work conducted by Plaintiff's attorneys

conducting research on the ACPA,

drafting a complaint based on

this research,
defendant,
under the

and since this case

involved a foreign national
service of process
prepared a discovery

establishing the requirements of
Hague Convention. The attorneys

plan and drafted interrogatories and admission. attorneys spoke with one another, shared legal

Finally,

the

research findings,

and discussed with Plaintiff
progressed.

the strategy of

its

case as it

This Court considers appears

the following Barber factors:

it

to this Court that Plaintiff's attorneys expended a
amount of time and labor on Plaintiff's matter.

reasonable

Specifically, of-counsel

the attorneys employed the labor of 4 associates,
spent,

2 partners, This

1

attorney,

and 2 paralegals.
20

team

of attorneys and staff a span of eight months,

on average,

hours per month over

with work hours

increasing during the

months

immediately prior to Plaintiff's While

filing a motion for the novelty and difficulty like this does require trademark law
as in this

summary judgment in this Court. of this ACPA claim are not great,

a case

some amount of

skill and expertise in the area of
requirements of the ACPA.

and the procedural case,

Often,

an ACPA claim involves a defendant

from whom recovery is

difficult to obtain.

This factor must be considered by this
to the attorneys in

Court when addressing the opportunity costs pressing this litigation. The customary fee

for like work can

only be compared to the customary fee charged by like-sized firms

with 167.2

similar experience hours

working

in this

jurisdiction.

For the

billed on this matter, $57,8 94.50. This Court is

Plaintiff's attorneys charged agrees with Plaintiff's the fee charged in the

a total of attorneys

that

the

fee

charged

in accord with

by other similarly-sized firms

with experience practicing

Eastern District of Virginia.
expectations were at the outset

It
of

is unclear what
this

the attorneys'
It is clear

litigation.

that ACPA claims
that defendants

can be unpredictable
are often difficult to

in nature due

to the

fact

locate and attorneys must

adjust

to

shifting jurisdiction

(in rem or

in personum),

international service of process,
protecting trademarks

and other variables unique

to
On

from infringement by foreign parties.

the issue of fee
of

time case,

limitations

imposed on the attorneys consider that
of

seeking a

in this
this case
rules

this Court will
time

the circumstances

incurred the
in

limitations

the ACPA and the
Regarding

local

the Eastern District of Virginia.

amount

in controversy and results

obtained,

this

Court

found that

Defendant's infringement of willful,

Plaintiff's marks was

so deliberate,

and performed in bad faith as to merit a statutory award $100,000. The experience and ability of the firm
sound, and the firm's reputation is

to Plaintiff of

that worked on this

case are

positive.
within the

There is no evidence that this
legal community in which the

case was
arose.

"undesirable"
The nature

suit

and

length of

the relationship between attorney and client

appears

to be positive

and of

some

duration.

Finally,

attorney's

fees fees

awarded in similar cases have been commensurate with submitted in this After considering case. these Barber factors, $57,894.50. this

the

Court has Plaintiff

established a lodestar

figure of

Since

prevailed on its allowable,
figure.

claim and was Court sees

awarded the

full

statutory amount lodestar

this

no reason to diminish this

Plaintiff of $1,171.89.

also submitted an invoice of This cost figure

costs

in the amount Lexis

is comprised of Westlaw,

and Pacer research fees, This Court finds that

and court

filing and delivery fees. are reasonable.
fees of and cost invoices,

these costs
the

Upon full this Court

review of

attorney's the amount

awards

Plaintiff

$59,066.39.

An appropriate Order

shall

issue.

/s/

Claude M. Hilton United States District Judge
Alexandria, Virginia

2009